I would question how one defines âIndianâ culture vs âHinduâ culture (this is a real question, Iâm not being snarky). Zohran speaks Urdu/Hindi, wears shalwar kameez and uses Bollywood references in his campaign. So clearly, he has no issues with Indian culture. Heâs not a Hindu so he doesnât go to temples etc. Iâm not sure exactly what you expect him to do?
While Zohran Mamdani expresses outward familiarity with âIndianâ culture â speaking Hindi/Urdu, referencing Bollywood, wearing traditional attire â these are surface markers. They do not, on their own, constitute rootedness in Indian civilizational identity. Indian culture, especially post-Partition, is not simply a composite of languages and aesthetics. It is anchored in Dharma â a diffuse but pervasive civilisational ethos shaped over millennia by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain worldviews.
Despite being born to a Hindu mother, Zohranâs public identity is strongly framed within a Muslim, Middle Eastern, and postcolonial activist context. His political and cultural instincts appear more aligned with pan-Islamic and Western progressive causes than with any articulation of Indian philosophical or spiritual heritage. His Syrian Muslim spouse, activist framing, and lack of visible engagement with Indic traditions contribute to this perception.
This is not a religious critique but a civilizational one. Just as Israel defines its national identity through a broadly Jewish character â irrespective of belief â Indiaâs cultural self-understanding is inseparable from its Hindu roots. To be Indian, in this view, is not to perform cultural familiarity but to resonate with the metaphysical and historical rhythms of the civilization.
By that measure, Zohran â despite South Asian ancestry â does not code as civilizationally Indian, but rather as an American progressive of South Asian Muslim extraction. The distinction is subtle but important.
